Monday, November 05, 2012

i estimate that absolutely noone gives a damn about the NHL, so by folding that thread into this one, we won’t distract from what this thread is really about: boner pills, blood doping (is it low t?), and…jesus christ did mike vick just throw another ####### interception?

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Second guessing RG3 starting this game is silly, but it's definitely fair to ask what they new about RG3s injury at half time and why they didn't make the switch then.

Good question, and the larger question is whether or not Griffin's knee is going to be extra vulnerable for the rest of his career. Nothing's sadder than seeing two evenly matched teams get primed for a showdown, only to have one of the teams have their key player at half speed. That entire game was just painful to watch for anyone but a Seahawks fan. When I first saw Griffin go down my first thought was about Derek Jeter's last play in the ALCS, even if it doesn't seem to be quite that bad.

Anyway, from here I gotta root for the Seahawks and the Ravens, but I can't see anyone beating the Broncos in the AFC.

Acknowledging my bias as a New England fan, but you really can't see the Patriots beating the Broncos? I'll grant that the Broncos are the favorite with home-field (if that match-up comes to pass), but it's not like a Patriot win would be odd.

Acknowledging my bias as a New England fan, but you really can't see the Patriots beating the Broncos? I'll grant that the Broncos are the favorite with home-field (if that match-up comes to pass), but it's not like a Patriot win would be odd.

Okay, maybe there's a bit of reverse jinx going on there, since the Broncos are the one team in the NFL I truly detest. But no, I can't see the Patriots winning a shootout against Manning in Denver, not the way the Broncos have been playing for the past two months, although if it comes to that I'll certainly be rooting for them to do so.

P.S. FWIW FB-Reference's SRS has the Patriots at 12.8, the Seahawks at 12.2, the 49ers at 10.2, and the Broncos at 10.1. Of course their baseball counterpart had the Yankees pegged as the best team in baseball, so I'm not sure how much that system tells us.

I thought it was kind of funny that people actually thought the Vikings might win without Ponder because they had Adrian Peterson - as if Peterson balanced out Aaron Rodgers.

I think that probably has more to do with under-estimating the skill required to be one of those "just don't #### up" QBs. of which Trent Dilfer was the poster-boy back when I followed football.

The logic goes...Ponder just makes a short pass every now and then and just does his best to not throw picks while Peterson does all the work. Any schlub (ie. Joe Webb) could do that. Therefore, Ponder missing doesn't change much.

As Webb showed, while what Ponder does doesn't require an elite QB, it requires a competent one.

Can't be anything but thrilled with this season as a Skins fan, especially considering the Dallas wins and the cap penalty. I expected 8-8 at absolute best.

I'm pretty damn happy as well - I was hoping they would get to 7 wins after the 3-6 start. Hopefully there is not permanent damage to RGIII - It looks like mostly an aggravation of the lateral tear he had.

There's an exciting few weeks left, I'll go with a patriots - seahawks Superbowl - just a wild guess really.

P.S. FWIW FB-Reference's SRS has the Patriots at 12.8, the Seahawks at 12.2, the 49ers at 10.2, and the Broncos at 10.1. Of course their baseball counterpart had the Yankees pegged as the best team in baseball, so I'm not sure how much that system tells us.

Football Outsiders's DVOA has the Broncos ahead of the Patriots, but not by a huge margin. It has the Seahawks as the best team in football.

For the most part RB don't win playoff games. Playoff teams have been stopping teams that rely on a great RB to win their games for decades now.

If you begin with the 1970's Steelers dynasty, the only teams that won Super Bowls without elite QBs would be the three Redskins SB winners, the 1985 Bears, the 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Bucs. And in the case of the Redskins, Theisman was a near-elite QB, Williams had the game of his life in the SB, and Rypien was the NFL MVP in the year they won their last SB. It's not that every other QB was a HoFer, but they were all considered among the best QBs in the NFL at the time they won their SBs.

Football Outsiders's DVOA has the Broncos ahead of the Patriots, but not by a huge margin. It has the Seahawks as the best team in football.

And if Griffin had been at full strength today, I think you could have added the Redskins to the mix. Until he finally broke down today, that's a team that was improving every week on both sides of the line.

But no, I can't see the Patriots winning a shootout against Manning in Denver, not the way the Broncos have been playing for the past two months, although if it comes to that I'll certainly be rooting for them to do so.

Have you seen who the Broncos have been playing the past two months?

Racking up big wins against that Panhandlers Row isn't exactly the sport's toughest task. It was seven dwarfs and a reeling Ravens squad. Any suggestions of Patriot hopelessness are a little out there.

If you begin with the 1970's Steelers dynasty, the only teams that won Super Bowls without elite QBs would be the three Redskins SB winners, the 1985 Bears, the 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Bucs. And in the case of the Redskins, Theisman was a near-elite QB, Williams had the game of his life in the SB, and Rypien was the NFL MVP in the year they won their last SB. It's not that every other QB was a HoFer, but they were all considered among the best QBs in the NFL at the time they won their SBs.

Eh, the problem with this is that Super Bowl victories have this terrible habit of turning non-elite QBs into perceived elite ones. Jim Plunkett, Troy Aikman and Eli Manning were/are not elite QBs. Finger jewelry has given them an elite sheen the rest of their performance records don't mandate.

But no, I can't see the Patriots winning a shootout against Manning in Denver, not the way the Broncos have been playing for the past two months, although if it comes to that I'll certainly be rooting for them to do so.

Have you seen who the Broncos have been playing the past two months?

Racking up big wins against that Panhandlers Row isn't exactly the sport's toughest task. It was seven dwarfs and a reeling Ravens squad. Any suggestions of Patriot hopelessness are a little out there.

Sounds like you're talking about the 1954 Indians (smile). But I'm basing my thoughts on consistent improvement and the consistently large victory margins. And I'm not at all calling the Patriots' case "hopeless," only relatively unlikely playing in Denver in the face of Peyton Manning's MVP-level performance.

If you begin with the 1970's Steelers dynasty, the only teams that won Super Bowls without elite QBs would be the three Redskins SB winners, the 1985 Bears, the 2000 Ravens and the 2002 Bucs. And in the case of the Redskins, Theisman was a near-elite QB, Williams had the game of his life in the SB, and Rypien was the NFL MVP in the year they won their last SB. It's not that every other QB was a HoFer, but they were all considered among the best QBs in the NFL at the time they won their SBs.

Eh, the problem with this is that Super Bowl victories have this terrible habit of turning non-elite QBs into perceived elite ones. Jim Plunkett, Troy Aikman and Eli Manning were/are not elite QBs. Finger jewelry has given them an elite sheen the rest of their performance records don't mandate.

Well, that's why I made the point that they weren't necessarily HoFers, but I'd certainly dispute the notion that Aikman and Manning weren't considered elite QBs in the aftermath of their SB performances. Like it or not, a QB's evaluation is always going to depend in great part on how he performs in his biggest games, and by that standard there aren't many QBs who can top those two. You can argue that the standard is misguided, but since I was referring to perception in hindsight, it's still relevant to my point.

Like it or not, a QB's evaluation is always going to depend in great part on how he performs in his biggest games, and by that standard there aren't many QBs who can top those two. You can argue that the standard is misguided, but since I was referring to perception in hindsight, it's still relevant to my point.

What's your point, that teams need QBs who are perceived to be better than they really are to win Super Bowls?

What's your point, that teams need QBs who are perceived to be better than they really are to win Super Bowls?

No, it's that most teams** need QBs to perform like elite QBs in the Super Bowl to win Super Bowls. They can be Joe Montana or Doug Williams, or they can be Tom Brady or Eli Manning, just so long as they do it that day. Beyond this we're simply talking in circles, and I'm certainly not interested in waging a statistical war between Eli Manning and Tom Brady to prove that Eli Manning isn't really an elite quarterback. I'll leave that discussion to the Pro Football Hall of Merit.

The Redskins took a chance with their franchise QB's future by leaving him in the game as long as they did, and they may or may not have gotten away with it. Only time will tell whether they did, and in any event, the Redskins didn't advance any farther in the postseason than the Nats.

Andy, how is 1234 responsive? Griffin was playing hurt. Strasburg wasn't. And so both decisions were dumb, albeit for different reasons. Strasburg should have been playing and wasn't; Griffin shouldn't have been playing and was.

Re the Colts, did the loss of Arians hurt the playcalling? Because Luck simply wasn't throwing the ball downfield. Granted the Colts were overrated anyway, with their record not at all matching their point differential and winning too many close games.

Flacco had as many yards as Luck did despite Flacco throwing half as much and with just 12 completions. Flacco was letting it fly.

Actually, Griffin's injury looked much worse to me, potentially career ending, while Jeter's just looked season ending.

They both looked potentially career ending to me at first, especially after seeing that slo mo replay of Griffin's stumbling and the pressure that was being put on his knee by the awkwardness of his fall. At this point I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel that either of them will ever return to full form, though at least Griffin has his youth in his favor.

Andy, how is 1234 responsive? Griffin was playing hurt. Strasburg wasn't. And so both decisions were dumb, albeit for different reasons. Strasburg should have been playing and wasn't; Griffin shouldn't have been playing and was.

They were two different situations, but they were different in two different ways. Different in the way you say, and different in the long range strategy that motivated their teams, although in the case of the Redskins that long range strategy seemed to be almost nonexistent in hindsight.

-----------------------------------------

Re the Colts, did the loss of Arian hurt the playcalling? Because Luck simply wasn't throwing the ball downfield. Granted the Colts were overrated anyway, with their record not at all matching their point differential and winning too many close games.

Flacco had as many yards as Luck did despite Flacco throwing half as much and with just 12 completions. Flacco was letting it fly.

I saw that comparative stat line at the end, and it certainly was telling. Talk about a defense that bent but never quite broke, although a couple of times it was as much luck in the form of turnovers at critical moments that kept the Colts from scoring.

Anyway, I'm always conflicted whenever the Ravens play the Colts, since I look at the Indy uniforms and I'm pulled one way, but then I hear the greatest pro fight song ever as resurrected by the Ravens' marching band, and my heart belongs to Baltimore. God, I hope they can pull an upset next week, though I can't see it happening.

It isn't, but when I first saw Griffin go down I feared it might be much worse than a sprain, and I'm still not 100% certain he'll ever recover 100% of his mobility. This isn't the first time he's ever been thrown off his horse at a rodeo.

Robert Griffin III couldn't do much of anything Sunday except lie, which is what he's been trained to do in situations like this.

Lie to himself that he can still deliver like no backup could. Lie to his coach that this was nothing big. Lie to the doctors who tried to assess him in the swirl of a playoff sideline.

So Robert Griffin III lied, which is to be excused because this is a sport and a culture that rewards toughness in the face of common sense, a sport that celebrates the warrior who is willing to leave everything on the field, a business that believes such lies are part of the road to greatness... that's why rookie quarterbacks aren't supposed to make the call. Coaches are.

Griffin didn't have a coach Sunday.

He had Mike Shanahan, who looked at this mess, looked at each hapless Redskins drive, looked at every painful RG3 step, looked at every awkward, overthrown pass, and instead bought Griffin's weak arguments and then closed his eyes and lied to himself that it would all turn out OK...

Robert Griffin III did his job Sunday, only to have Mike Shanahan not do his.

The smart play is a guy(Luck) who was coming in with his own knee problems, also likes to run, and saw the ground constantly in today's game. Okay.

Yes, Griffin played though injuries. Its football, that's just expected of you. Claiming one player is better at preventing injuries is just foolhardy unless he plays just like Peyton Manning and his unwillingness to take a hit.

"I think I did put myself at more risk by being out there," Griffin said. "But every time you get on the field, you're putting yourself on the line."

Though Griffin walked off the field under his own power after several minutes and saluted the fans, the Redskins (10-7) quickly announced he would not return.

"If you didn't pull him out then, you should get fired," Shanahan said.

Earlier Sunday, USA Today Sports reported that renowned surgeon and Redskins team physician Dr. James Andrews never gave medical clearance for Griffin to return to the contest against the Ravens, even though Shanahan told reporters that the rookie had been cleared.

Andrews, who was on the Redskins' sideline during the game against the Ravens and during Sunday's matchup against the Seahawks, told USA Today Sports that he ultimately decided to pull Griffin from that contest due to what was diagnosed as a sprained knee. After initially suffering the injury against the Ravens, Griffin returned to the game for four plays before being replaced by fellow rookie Kirk Cousins.

Andrews also told USA Today Sports that he has been uneasy with Griffin's quick recovery from the injury. Griffin did not play in Washington's win over Cleveland on Dec. 16, but returned the following week against Philadelphia.

"I've been a nervous wreck letting him come back as quick as he has," Andrews told USA Today.

Despite Griffin's struggles Sunday against the Seahawks, Shanahan left him in the game -- not that Griffin would have accepted an early exit.

"I probably would been right back out there on the field," Griffin said. "You respect authority, and I respect Coach Shanahan. But at the same time, you have to step up and be a man, sometimes. There was no way I was coming out of that game."

"I don't feel like me being out there hurt the team in any way," Griffin, the No. 2 overall pick, said. "I'm the best option."

Shanahan said he spoke with Griffin throughout the game about the quarterback's health.

"He said, 'Hey, trust me. I want to be in there, and I deserve to be in there,' " Shanahan said. "I couldn't disagree with him."

Re the Colts, did the loss of Arians hurt the playcalling? Because Luck simply wasn't throwing the ball downfield. Granted the Colts were overrated anyway, with their record not at all matching their point differential and winning too many close games.

I haven't watched football for a few years, so I'm out of practice, but it looked to me like Luck was throwing a lot of deep balls off play action at the start of the game. In their first two or three drives he threw at least three deep bombs (that were all thrown well past the receiver). I didn't notice if they gave up on that as the game went on. It seemed to my not-closely-paying-attention-eye, that both teams made deep throws, but Boldin was the only receiver on either team catching them.

Out of curiosity, are the "Approxamite Value" scores on pro-football-reference usable at all?*

I don't even mean anything near a WAR standard of usable (which we all know is far from perfect). But if I were to plug the career AV of all the running backs who have had a 1000 yard season since 1994 into a database and weight for peak would it spit out something silly like Willis McGahee as the best running back of the past 20 years?

*and if not is there a better "misguided attempt to shoe-horn a player into one number" stat?

The smart play is a guy(Luck) who was coming in with his own knee problems, also likes to run, and saw the ground constantly in today's game. Okay.

Yes, Griffin played though injuries. Its football, that's just expected of you. Claiming one player is better at preventing injuries is just foolhardy unless he plays just like Peyton Manning and his unwillingness to take a hit.

You seem to be saying that a scrambling QB is no more at risk to get injured than a pocket passer.

Except Luck isn't a 'pocket passer'. He'll run when he sees an opportunity, or when the play is designed for him to run. Its not an either/or situation. Most NFL QBs will do both, its just the ratio of pass vs. run now. There's no more pure Drew Blesode guys out there.

You seem to be saying that a scrambling QB is no more at risk to get injured than a pocket passer.

What a bizarre view.

We covered this earlier in the thread, but I don't think it's that simple. A running quarterback potentially exposes himself to more hits, but I think a hit to a QB in the pocket is more likely to cause damage than one delivered to a QB on the run, due to the fact that the pocket QB has less ability to protect himself against a hit than one on the run. Now, if you're a pocket passer like Peyton, with a combination of intelligence, a quick release and general lack of interest in taking a hit, you're safer than most. Or if you're a running quarterback who also gets hit in the pocket a lot, then you're obviously a DL stint waiting to happen. But I don't think being a scrambling QB is necessarily a death wish in the NFL.

Related, and I don't know the answer to this, but where have Michael Vick's injuries happened? It seems to me like most of them have come from blows he's taken in the pocket, but I don't really know. Anyone?

Griffin, as expected, runs far more often than Luck, and looks to pick up far more yards per attempt than Luck.

From what I've seen, Griffin looks to run the ball as another play in the playbook; Luck generally runs the ball after the pocket breaks down and he has no receivers open, especially if a first down is within reach. Running appears to be a last resort for Luck, but it is one of the primary options for Griffin.

Yeah, I'm being a bit of a prick in this argument. I should apologize about that. I just annoyed that you already predicted that Griffin's already headed to having a bum knee for the rest of his career. Nobody knows that, not even his doctors.

Griffin had a 102.4 rating and was picking up nearly 7 yards every time he took off. You take your chances with that guy. Griffin at less than 100% was still the best quarterback on the roster. You play the best quarterback on your roster in the playoffs, and whatever happens, happens. The Redskins' mistake wasn't in playing Griffin, it was in playing Griffin after he started limping around.

Funny how nobody's handwringing over Russell Wilson. He runs nearly as often as Griffin does (7.25 attempts per game the second half of the season), and he's both smaller and lighter than RG3, just built a stockier.

We covered this earlier in the thread, but I don't think it's that simple.

Well, what is that simple is simply looking at the stats to see who is running more and how far they are running. Tripon bizarrely claimed that Luck "also likes to run," implying that he's not all that different from Griffin, when that is quite plainly not the case. Luck does not like to run at all. Four times per game, for 16 yards, as opposed to eight times per game for 54 yards for Griffin.

Related, and I don't know the answer to this, but where have Michael Vick's injuries happened? It seems to me like most of them have come from blows he's taken in the pocket, but I don't really know. Anyone?

I watch Vick whenever I can. It seems to me it's been both, but, no, I don't have the info. I can remember a number of times he's been hurt outside the pocket and beyond the line of scrimmage, though. Last year's shoulder injury happened after he got sandwiched between the shoulders by two defenders at the end of a run. But the concussion this year was because he hit his head following a sack.

Yeah, there's no point in arguing this with you. Go ahead and think Griffin's destined for a quick exit out of the league, I'm just going to watch the games.

edit: And its not waste if you actually needed to look at the data. By now, you should have seen that Andrew Luck DOES run enough to not just be labeled 'a pocket passer'. Really, terms like 'runner QB' and 'pocket passer' needs to go away, they're inaccurate terms at best nowadays.

So Luck ran the ball 58 more times, while he threw the ball 234 more times than Griffin. All those extra pass attempts are going to close the gap between the two in terms of hits taken at least a little (Luck took 11 more sacks than Griffin, for instance).

Griffin, as expected, runs far more often than Luck, and looks to pick up far more yards per attempt than Luck.

Accepting that Griffin is much faster and more athletic than Luck, if they were equally cautious while running, it'd be reasonable to expect Griffin to have a much better average per attempt. I don't think the YPC means much here in terms of injury concerns.

I don't know which one is more of an injury risk. I'd guess it's Griffin, but I don't think the information out there makes it so clear. The sample of QBs who run as often as Griffin does is too small to reach any sort of conclusions. Ray, given that when discussing baseball you're so focused on the data that people call you a robot (I know that's only part of the reason people call you a robot), it's sort of amusing that you're so willing to accept conventional wisdom on this topic.

Well, what is that simple is simply looking at the stats to see who is running more and how far they are running. Tripon bizarrely claimed that Luck "also likes to run," implying that he's not all that different from Griffin, when that is quite plainly not the case. Luck does not like to run at all. Four times per game, for 16 yards, as opposed to eight times per game for 54 yards for Griffin.

My point had nothing to do with Luck vs. Griffin, so the simplicity of checking which one runs more is irrelevant. I'm talking about the part I actually quoted, where you claimed that it's bizarre that pocket passers could be more at risk than scrambling QBs. You may be right, but until I see injury data on the types of plays and injury rates for QBs, I'm going to hold off on making major pronouncements. See, unlike you, who clearly flies by the seat of his pants, shooting off opinions sans information, I prefer a more methodical, data-based approach to these questions. You should try it some time. (-:

Via FBRef's PI, QBs with at least 100 rush attempts in a season in the Super Bowl era (RG3's number of rushing attempts this year ranks 6th of of 14 among qualifying seasons):

Bobby Douglass (1972) - I know his name, but that's it. Only had 1 more season where he started most of his team's games. The stats make it appear that he was generally healthy but just not good enough to start.

Randall Cunningham (1989, 1990) - 1990 was his age 27 season, so he was several years older than Griffin is now. Got himself hurt in the first game of the 1991 season and missed the rest of the year. Afterwards, had only 3 seasons in which he started 14 or more games. Part of this was due to injury, part of this was due to being relegated to backup duty much of the time (quite possibly due to loss of skill from injuries, given that he was an all-pro from '88-'90).

Steve McNair (1997) - From 1998-2006, averaged 14 games per season. Ran 70-80 times per season from '98 through '02, before becoming more of a pocket passer.

Daunte Culpepper (2002) - Played 14 games in '03 with 73 rushing attempts. Set the record for total yards in '04, playing every game and carrying the ball 88 times. Got hurt half way through the '05 season, spent the rest of his career alternating between injuries and ineffectiveness.

Michael Vick (2002, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010) - Only slightly less mobile now than he was when he was a kid, possibly aided by his time off. Good bet for about 12 games/year.

Tim Tebow (2011) - Deemed unworthy of starting over Mark Sanchez and Greg McElroy for reasons having nothing to do with his health.

So that gives us a total of 4 guys (Cunningham, McNair, Culpepper, and Vick) to really work with. All were relatively healthy (averaging 13+ games) for at least 5 year stretches, averaging 80 or so rushing attempts per season. I don't why Griffin is such a worse bet than any of them were, especially since I'd imagine his coaching staff is going to try to avoid having him carry the ball 120 times/season in the future. I'm not going to start placing bets on him matching Manning's consecutive starts streak, but RG3 playing 12 games a year for 5 years at something near his current level would be very far from a bust.

Luck does not like to run at all. Four times per game, for 16 yards, as opposed to eight times per game for 54 yards for Griffin.

Even though multiple people have pointed it out already, I'll say it too. Luck runs more than most QBs. He was tied with Vick for 5th most carries by a QB this year. He only "does not like to run at all" if your standard for liking to run is Griffin/Newton/Wilson.

Griffin had a 102.4 rating and was picking up nearly 7 yards every time he took off. You take your chances with that guy. Griffin at less than 100% was still the best quarterback on the roster. You play the best quarterback on your roster in the playoffs, and whatever happens, happens. The Redskins' mistake wasn't in playing Griffin, it was in playing Griffin after he started limping around.

Agree - It's still really hard to second guess the decision. Griffin has been on one leg the last two weeks against Dallas and Philly. It seemed the team had gotten used to it and I certainly know we did as fans.

There was something clearly wrong today when his hand offs to Morris looked really sloppy - it was obvious to see. But what were they meant to do? (Lichtensteiger getting hurt didn't help the cause either) But they lead most of the game and it seemed they might scrape through.

I am convinced he will go on and continue to play to his 2012/13 levels once it is hopefully confirmed that this is just an LCL tear (fingers crossed) . Must say I am really surprised by the criticism leveled at the coaching staff on this , in any case I am gutted more so knowing that the injury throws up a huge "what if" about what the Skins could have done this year if he was healthy.

I'd certainly dispute the notion that Aikman and Manning weren't considered elite QBs in the aftermath of their SB performances. Like it or not, a QB's evaluation is always going to depend in great part on how he performs in his biggest games

Textbook begging the question: Only teams with QB's that are considered elite can win the SB. Why are they considered elite? Cause they won the SB.

part of what made griffith effective as a passer was the defense having to consider the run in each play. just that moment of hesitation can be the difference in a receiver getting separation or not.

once a very good defense like seattle recognized that griffith running was not a concern they could play differently.

cousins should have come in at the start of the third quarter. it would have been a surprise to seattle, given washington a momentary edge (cripes joe webb managed a drive for a field goal until green bay adjusted) and maybe washington sneaks in a field goal or even a touchdown. as for the remainder of the game you run morris, you run play action and you have a qb who can plant and deliver a ball to a spot versus sailing everything high

shanahan failed his player and his team last night.

and credit to the washington defense which played way over its head. i think they sacked wilson 5 times and forced him to throw the ball away several other times. just a tremendous effort. haslet did a great job.

I'd certainly dispute the notion that Aikman and Manning weren't considered elite QBs in the aftermath of their SB performances. Like it or not, a QB's evaluation is always going to depend in great part on how he performs in his biggest games

Textbook begging the question: Only teams with QB's that are considered elite can win the SB. Why are they considered elite? Cause they won the SB.

Not necessarily, not if they're Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson. But when you perform like Eli Manning did against two of the stronger teams in recent memory, in the final game of the year and with half the world watching, it does tend to jack up your reputation a tad.

Except Luck isn't a 'pocket passer'. He'll run when he sees an opportunity, or when the play is designed for him to run. Its not an either/or situation. Most NFL QBs will do both, its just the ratio of pass vs. run now. There's no more pure Drew Blesode guys out there.

Right, except for either Manning, Brady, Brees. Carson Palmer is not mobile. Kurt Warner only retired three years ago. Stafford and Matt Ryan only have average mobility. Most QBs cut back on their running years before they lose their ability to play. That hasn't changed.

Funny how nobody's handwringing over Russell Wilson. He runs nearly as often as Griffin does (7.25 attempts per game the second half of the season), and he's both smaller and lighter than RG3, just built a stockier.

Well, I don't live in Seattle but if I did I wouldn't be prognosticating a long career for him either.

Its not an either/or situation. Most NFL QBs will do both, its just the ratio of pass vs. run now. There's no more pure Drew Blesode guys out there.

Not sure if you're being literal, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning and Peyton Manning average a similar numbers of rushing attempts per game as Bledsoe did, about 1.5-2 game. Brady's only slightly higher, and most of his are short yardage sneaks (he had 4 rushing TDs this year).

Not sure if you're being literal, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning and Peyton Manning average a similar numbers of rushing attempts per game as Bledsoe did, about 1.5-2 game. Brady's only slightly higher, and most of his are short yardage sneaks (he had 4 rushing TDs this year).

Well, there are no more quarterbacks named Drew Bledsoe, so his statement is literally true.

As Harvey mentioned already mentioned a scrambling QB relies heavily on his ability to scramble to create time and space on the field when that player loses a step or becomes unwilling to scramble and desires to become a pocket passer he loses that extra bit of time and space. So now instead of picking up 50 to 80 yards on the ground as well as finding a few extra wide open receivers that QB with a mediocre arm is picking up 10 or so yards on the ground and finding he has less time and space on the field to throw the ball resulting in a less effective offense.

You draft a scrambling/running QB because of their mobility as well as their arm and other QB skills. His mobility tends to compensate for the lack of skills in other areas and thus if he loses his mobility his flaws become exposed plus injuries tend to deteriorate those other skills as well.

Not sure if you're being literal, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning and Peyton Manning average a similar numbers of rushing attempts per game as Bledsoe did, about 1.5-2 game. Brady's only slightly higher, and most of his are short yardage sneaks (he had 4 rushing TDs this year).

To be fair, you drop RGIII into New England's offensive scheme, or onto a team with Roddy White, Julio Jones, Tony Gonzalez and Michael Turner, he's probably going to run a lot less than he did in DC this year.

assuming that someone takes an axe to the eagles secondary, this draft should go a ways towards rebuilding it. even assuming that hayden misses the start of the season due to injury, you'd still bring in the best cover corner in this draft (millner), and 2 other playmakers (rambo and mathieu). if you add brandon boykin, colt anderson, and some combination of brandon hughes/curtis marsh/trevard lindley, that's a potentially decent secondary.

then devin taylor is just a guy i have a feeling about. the eagles have noone who looks like him (6'8, 290 lbs), so since what they've been doing hasn't worked anyway, you might as well go against the grain.

and then on offense, if there was a high level WR coming out this year, i'd be all-in for him at 3, but since there's no aj green, or calvin johnson or larry fitzgerald in this draft, i'll happily settle for fauria. if you figure that the eagles have sucked in the redzone because their receiving corps is full of midges, bringing in the 6'7 fauria would be a strong step towards changing that.

and then, with the OL, well, with andy reid having the #1 overall pick, there's really very little doubt in my mind that he'll take luke joeckel, so i'd wait to address the need until later in the draft. long and winters are each big, somewhat athletic linemen, and i'd figure that at the very least, they could challenge dennis kelly as the first injury replacement off the bench.

since i've noted my preference for an almost complete rebuild, i'd view this draft as the first building block towards that goal.

I may be a total idiot but I don't see the Eagles in need of a total overhaul. I mean, so many things must go wrong for a veteran team with playoff aspirations to go 4-12 that it's hard to gauge things objectively.

Bear in mind I know nothing about college football.

If you start with the assumption that you are rolling the dice with Nick Foles, and I have no problem with that, esp. with no Luck/RG3 in this draft, I think going OT is a pretty safe/smart route. The Eagles proved you can never really have enough OTs and they are traditionally good value picks in the top 5. Jason Peters in 2011 was as good at LT as any player I've seen in watching football for more than 30 years; no idea if that same player still exists. If he's back I'd move Herremans back inside to guard and cut your losses on the Danny Watkins experiment.

That said, I see the most pressing needs on defense. I'd love a big receiver and would love a TE upgrade, but going forward with a core of McCoy/Brown, Jackson, Maclin, Avant, Johnson, Celek at skill positions isn't the worst thing in the world.

The secondary is a total shamockery. Four new starters would be a welcome sight.

Assuming you keep a 4-3 defense, you have talent in the front 7: Ryans was a good find, Kendricks will hopefully step up and be a difference-maker at Will. A stud strongside linebacker who can cover TEs wouldn't hurt but really, this position is more promising than it has been for years.

Given the instability on the coaching staff, the defensive line isn't half-bad. Even if you assume Cole is done as a true impact player, he's still a viable starter. Graham absolutely deserves to start. Fletcher Cox has All-Pro potential.

Get a good coach, add a midlevel free agent or two, draft well...if Foles can be adequate, I can see the Eagles competing in 2013.

I may be a total idiot but I don't see the Eagles in need of a total overhaul. I mean, so many things must go wrong for a veteran team with playoff aspirations to go 4-12 that it's hard to gauge things objectively.

Get a good coach, add a midlevel free agent or two, draft well...if Foles can be adequate, I can see the Eagles competing in 2013.

i'm of the opinion that this team is toxic right now, and that the veteran core (cole, jenkins, patterson, asomugha, DRC, vick) needs to be excised before the start of next season. i don't think they're winning anything of significance with those players, so by getting rid of them all in one fell swoop, i'd aim to create a void of leadership which would hopefully be filled by guys like nick foles, demeco ryans, lesean mccoy, brandon graham, and fletcher cox.

i agree about foles, by the way. when i hear people say that the eagles shouldn't commit to him this offseason, i just shake my head. his salary is minuscule, due to his being a 3rd round pick, and it really costs the team absolutely nothing for him to be given the keys to the franchise next year. they're not getting anyone who's better; not in the draft, nor in free agency, and again, since he's making no money, there's no commitment to him past this season.

and w/r/t danny watkins, personally, i didn't like that they picked him on draft day to begin with, and i was royally pissed when the ####### 26 year old rookie offensive lineman held out from his first training camp looking for..###### if i know. i don't know if the NFL has compensation picks, but i'd have cut bait on him then and made the goofy looking ###### go back into the next year's draft as a 27 year old rookie offensive lineman.

oh, and w/r/t the linebacking corps, in a vacuum, i would love to get another stud, but the truth is, they have kendricks and ryans, and considering how often NFL offenses use 3 and 4 WR sets, i just don't see it as a big need for them to get a third starting-caliber LB.

but basically, i don't think the smart money here is to try for a quick fix. you're already starting the year with an entirely new coaching staff, 3 offensive linemen coming off major injury, a 2nd year starting QB originally drafted in the 3rd round, a TE who probably shouldn't step back onto the field again considering how many massive blows to the head he's taken, and a secondary that is...well, the less that's said, the better.

with all of that hanging over the team's collective heads, just give me a fresh start with a new core.

If he has not torn his ACL , then the road to recovery and starting next season be ok via...

1) Good old fashioned rehab
2) they can get in there and synthetically re-enforce the ACL (is this what happened to Peterson , even though I assume he total a total synthetic reconstruction?)

Needless to say I will not rest well until I know what the diagnosis but I rang an Orthopedic Surgeon freaking out and he gave us the above advice and possible courses of action. He also thinks I'm nuts , but we all knew that...

Anyway, guess it's a waiting game till the results come in - if he is out next year I'll be totally gutted - the Skins were finally coming good it seems.

Steagles: I feel like going into next year without Reid, the entire coaching staff, Vick, DRC, Nnamdi, Patterson (too much bad blood), Allen, Coleman and Jenkins is pretty much a big overhaul.

oh, and w/r/t the linebacking corps, in a vacuum, i would love to get another stud, but the truth is, they have kendricks and ryans, and considering how often NFL offenses use 3 and 4 WR sets, i just don't see it as a big need for them to get a third starting-caliber LB.

This sounds logical but really isn't that far removed from the Reid/Banner-era line of thinking, which then leads you to having a defense filled with 7th-round picks, and guys like Mark Simoneau and Matt McCoy. I'd settle for someone who can either cover or stop the run, as opposed to the glorified special teamers the Eagles have been trotting out there for years.

I hated every second of the 2011 draft almost as much as I loved the 2012 draft.

the way i look at the forwards, i want to build up matt read as much as possible because when the time comes to extend giroux and schenn and couturier, it would be really nice to have a young-ish ~30 goal, ~70 point scorer to trade for some young, cheap, controllable roster filler.

also, the talbot - couturier - voracek line would be an attempt to form a checking line. it's kind of a waste of voracek's offensive talent, but on the plus side, there's a chance that putting him on couturier's wing will allow couturier to tap into his offensive ability.

also, i'm still in favor of putting the C on briere's chest. i know people love giroux, and hell, i do too, but i just think briere is the right guy.

and then with the 4th line, i'd just want some bangers. i'm fairly sure that the flyers will have at least 1 surprise callup - either laughton or cousins or...someone - but yeah, i want that 4th line to be a crash line. also, i'm fairly sure that fedotenko has absolutely nothing left.

as for the defense, again, i like the idea of having a shutdown pair, which would be the hope in putting together coburn and grossman. then schenn and timonen have a nice combination where timonen is the talent and schenn is the muscle. likewise, you'd have a similar thing going with gustaffson and walker...at least until meszaros comes back.

overall, i'm not really at all sure of what to expect.

This sounds logical but really isn't that far removed from the Reid/Banner-era line of thinking, which then leads you to having a defense filled with 7th-round picks, and guys like Mark Simoneau and Matt McCoy. I'd settle for someone who can either cover or stop the run, as opposed to the glorified special teamers the Eagles have been trotting out there for years.

the eagles issues on defense have been related more to poor drafting than a lack of investment. nate allen and jaiquawn jarrett were 2nd round picks, curtis marsh and daniel teo-nesheim were 3rd rounders. casey matthews, trevard lindley, and keenan clayton were 4th rounders. all in 2010 and 2011. go back to 2010 and think of what this team could look like if they had drafted earl thomas, daryl washington and sean lee instead of brandon graham, nate allen, and daniel teo-nesheim. or if you go to 2011, what would this defense have looked like if the eagles drafted richard sherman instead of curtis marsh?

i mean, it's easy to say that they should just draft better, but that's really what's been the problem. well, that and the death of jim johnson. but otherwise...

All depends on how torn the ACL is as well. I can live with 6-8 months, I've been fairly defensive of his style but the thought of not having him the next few years is sickening, he's going to have to change a few things next season.